Legal Opinion

Mulholland v. DEC International Corp.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1989No. 81545, (Calendar No. 6)PublishedCited by 94 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBoyle, J.

Two issues are raised in the plaintiffs’ *398appeal from the directed verdict in their product liability action. The first is whether the trial court erred by ruling that plaintiffs’ expert, Sidney Beale, was not qualified to give an expert opinion as to the cause of mastitis in the plaintiffs’ herd of dairy cows. The second issue is whether the plaintiffs’ proofs were sufficient to survive the motion for a directed verdict, with or without Beale’s testimony as to the cause of mastitis in the Mulholland herd. We have concluded that both questions must be answered in the affirmative and that this…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Placek v. City of Sterling HeightsMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Piercefield v. Remington Arms Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Caldwell v. FoxMichigan Supreme Court · 1975
  4. People v. DavisMichigan Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Matras v. Amoco Oil Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1986

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by94 opinions

  1. Skinner v. Square D Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Craig v. Oakwood HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Town v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Klooster v. City of CharlevoixMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Dxs, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, F/k/a Flint X-Ray, Inc. v. Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., a Foreign CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996

89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API